A revelation came from the Lord that your cherished beloved bride would be required to take another husband. Not only were you to support her, and approve of this, but you were to also be a supportive "brother husband" to this man who would share physical and emotional intimacies with your wife, who is your best friend, lover, and life partner. This "brother husband" would also be sharing your wife's bed, fathering her children, making life decisions with her.

And if you show any sign of jealousy, you are merely told to "suck it up" by other Church members. You just don't understand true faithfulness, and are simply weak. "Someday, you will understand what a blessed commandment this is, and it will all become clear to you."

If you dare....really put yourself in this position. Don't simply dismiss it because it is not the current reality.

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

I would really appreciate your serious thoughts and discussion on this matter.

When I first learned about Joseph Smith marrying other man's wives I thought about what it would be like for those men to have to share their wives with the prophet. How terrible it must have been for them. Then I realized that this was essentially what every woman involved in polygamy experienced.It's embarassing to admit but I don't think I appreciated the ugliness of polygamy until I knew about polyandry.

When I first learned about Joseph Smith marrying other man's wives I thought about what it would be like for those men to have to share their wives with the prophet. How terrible it must have been for them. Then I realized that this was essentially what every woman involved in polygamy experienced.It's embarassing to admit but I don't think I appreciated the ugliness of polygamy until I knew about polyandry.

Thanks, Stormy Waters! I really appreciate your honesty.

I just don't understand how a situation where there was eternal plural marriage could cause anything but heartbreak. And, why would God give us the ability to fall in love, and have that type of intense relationship with someone, if the ultimate situation (plural marriage) would cause such pain? That is not the type of forever situation I would want any part of. Why is it so hard for apologists to really grasp this concept?

Liz, I most certainly have considered this scenario. I couldn't live it.

The jealousy and rage that could erupt, in this type of scenario, would likely lead to dead bodies turning up with some frequency. Men would not simply write of personal woes in their journals about having to live this new celestial law. Heads would roll.

But I guess that's the whole point of the matter, we didn't have to take the short end of the marital arrangement. Holding the priesthood means you always draw the longest straw.

Liz, I most certainly have considered this scenario. I couldn't live it.

The jealousy and rage that could erupt, in this type of scenario, would likely lead to dead bodies turning up with some frequency. Men would not simply write of personal woes in their journals about having to live this new celestial law. Heads would roll.

But I guess that's the whole point of the matter, we didn't have to take the short end of the marital arrangement. Holding the priesthood means you always draw the longest straw.

You'd be sent on a mission halfway around the world and wouldn't even know it until you got home... and your wife was pregnant.

_________________(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

If you dare....really put yourself in this position. Don't simply dismiss it because it is not the current reality.

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

Oh, I understand why accepting plural marriage would be difficult for faithful women "to understand or deal with." I'm no big fan of polygamy. However, I'm also not a big fan of the alternative. Are you?

liz3564 wrote:

I would really appreciate your serious thoughts and discussion on this matter.

I've actually been exposed to this scenario for a long time, namely twenty years, the twenty years that Sandy and I have been married. She made it clear from the outset that she didn't want to be in a polygamous marriage either in this life or the next, and she explicitly said that if polygamy ever did come back to the LDS Church, she wanted the option to have multiple husbands, not the other way around.

If you dare....really put yourself in this position. Don't simply dismiss it because it is not the current reality.

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

Oh, I understand why accepting plural marriage would be difficult for faithful women "to understand or deal with." I'm no big fan of polygamy. However, I'm also not a big fan of the alternative. Are you?

What alternative would that be?

liz3564 wrote:

I would really appreciate your serious thoughts and discussion on this matter.

Kevin wrote:

I've actually been exposed to this scenario for a long time, namely twenty years, the twenty years that Sandy and I have been married. She made it clear from the outset that she didn't want to be in a polygamous marriage either in this life or the next, and she explicitly said that if polygamy ever did come back to the LDS Church, she wanted the option to have multiple husbands, not the other way around.

For Latter-day Saints, just as it is for Protestants of all denominations, there are three actively attending women for every two actively attending men. That leaves a surplus of women. Now some of the women aren't going to have a great desire to marry, and some of them are going to be okay with marrying men that can't take them to the temple, either inside or outside the LDS Church. But I think even if you subtract those women out, you're still going to have a surplus.

So the alternative is monogamy for the lucky, and celibacy for the unlucky. I ask you again, are you okay with the alternative?

liz3564 wrote:

And your response?

Oh, I was more than happy to go along with it. I don't expect polygamy to ever come back to the LDS Church anyhow, so that was an easy condition to go along with.

I have thought about this. While it would be more pleasant to have multiple women than men in the house, I think I might still be willing to give it a shot. The following items need to be in place:

1. This man must be a great conversationalist 2. This man must appreciate beautiful things3. This man must not be lazy 4. This man must be able to sing and dance5. This man must appreciate my cooking6. This man must have a steady career that pays well7. This man must make at least half of all my dear wife's dreams come true

We would have a ball.

_________________Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

Does this at least give you a glimpse as to why accepting plural marriage as an eternal law would be difficult for faithful LDS women to understand or deal with?

Not at all. Either one ultimately believes or one doesn't. We already have just as great a difficulty the way things are. Men are built mentally and physically to mate with multiple women. Yet we must put all that aside and mate only with one for life. On top of that, we must suffer through a 3-hour Sunday block. Believe me, men have it just as bad if not worse.

_________________Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

Oh, I was more than happy to go along with it. I don't expect polygamy to ever come back to the LDS Church anyhow, so that was an easy condition to go along with.

The New and Eternal Marriage Covenant: A Proclamation to the World - decreed by The First Female Prophet.

Don't be afraid, it is not nigh...

_________________- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei

Not at all. Either one ultimately believes or one doesn't. We already have just as great a difficulty the way things are. Men are built mentally and physically to mate with multiple women. Yet we must put all that aside and mate only with one for life. On top of that, we must suffer through a 3-hour Sunday block. Believe me, men have it just as bad if not worse.

Bottom line: You don't understand men.

And you really don't understand women, nor do you understand evolution and biology, all of which point to the fact that women are also "built" to mate with more than one man. In fact, that's why the male sex organ is shaped the way it is - to plunge out the competitor's semen.

You also clearly don't understand the female capacity for orgasms. More's the pity for your wife.

Evolutionary biology demonstrates that human beings are prone to have one primary mate, and do some dabbling on the side. Which is, of course, a summary of the history of this planet. Of course, this, like all generalizations, only predicts trends and not individual behavior.

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

For Latter-day Saints, just as it is for Protestants of all denominations, there are three actively attending women for every two actively attending men. That leaves a surplus of women. Now some of the women aren't going to have a great desire to marry, and some of them are going to be okay with marrying men that can't take them to the temple, either inside or outside the LDS Church. But I think even if you subtract those women out, you're still going to have a surplus.

So the alternative is monogamy for the lucky, and celibacy for the unlucky. I ask you again, are you okay with the alternative?

Anyone who has been in a bad marriage can tell you that celibacy of FAR preferable.

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

As to the OP, when I was a faithful member this very topic was brought up in Sunday school to help the men understand Emma's "faithfulness". I remember thinking to myself, "Nope. Not a chance in Hell I'd do that."

It's clear to me that women who have historically participated in polygamy have generally been disadvantaged & to leave the polygamous union would cause them certain poverty at best, and death at worst. Additionally, once they have kids they understand very well that their fate is generally shared with their offspring.

Are there women who have enjoyed polygamous and polyandrous relationships? Sure. Same with men. I'd venture that the vast majority of women involved in polygamous unions would either prefer a monogamous relationship, no relationship, or the ability to be "married" but have something on the side.

- VRDRC

_________________In the anointed we find a whole class of supposedly ‘thinking people’ who do remarkably little thinking about substance and a great deal of verbal expression. - Dr. Thomas Sowell, Harvard, Columbia, University of Chicago

Got to ask you a question, Dr. Shades; are you male or female? It makes a difference here. If you're male you'd obviously be okay with the alternative, because no matter what happens you can have monogamy. You're among the lucky. All you have to do is refrain from being a jerk, and your life ends up pretty good.

But if you're female, then you stand a 33% chance of being among the unlucky.

Anyone who has been in a bad marriage can tell you that celibacy of FAR preferable.

Celibacy is "FAR preferable" to the "bad marriage"? I'll grant you that. But is celibacy preferable to any marriage at all?

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of polygamy, but it seems like there's something inherently wrong in a system that forces a full third of its female members to choose between celibacy and a marriage outside of the faith that's not going to last forever.